(Oct. 18, 2009)  The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a natural born citizen is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Lets cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the he says, she says, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of natural born citizenship.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a natural born citizen appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

Alan Keyes, in a recent Fox Business interview,focused attention on whether Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen;" this being easier to determine than his birthplace. However, he incorrectly stated that no one had dealt with the definition yet. This article cites four cases where the term is defined by the US Supreme Court. IN SUMMARY, "... the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.

The term “natural born citizen” is what has been sadly missing in the various States’ bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.

re: natural born citizen is what has been sadly missing in the various States bills and media coverage

Well, in the case of the MSM, of course it’s missing. It’s directly from the playbook of liberal organizations to spin a story in such a way that those who aren’t paying attention, or have been educated in public schools, don’t understand the principles involved and can be sent off on a snipe hunt.

The question is not if he was born in Hawaii, but rather is he a natural born citizen! And that should be pointed out loud and clear EVERY time and ANY time the subject comes up.

5
posted on 04/25/2011 2:17:02 AM PDT
by jwparkerjr
(I would rather lose with Sarah than win with a RINO!)

“The term natural born citizen is what has been sadly missing in the various States bills and media coverage that seems to be instead aimed on whether he was born in the US. As others have stated... He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House and still not be eligible to be POTUS, because his father was a British citizen.”

That’s because they KNOW he’s not qualified. Dirty little secret that is too embarrassing; many blacks don’t really know who their father is..........
We couldn’t really bring embarrassment to our dear leader could we?

6
posted on 04/25/2011 2:18:51 AM PDT
by vanilla swirl
(We are the Patrick Henry we have been waiting for!)

Perhaps “those in the know” are asking for the b.c. Because “daddy” ain’t daddy. If Frank Davis is listed as “daddy” then he is eligible. Maybe this was the discovery that led Zero to change his mind about his OWN eligibility. It seems in 2004 even HE recognized he wasn’t.

Now this would mean he IS eligible I suppose but then we get to biological vs paternal role and Lolo, etc. Folks would also want to know just who is this Frank Davis and that would open a can of worms Zero really doesn’t want to deal with.

Jack Cahill's 'Deconstructing Obama' tells all about FMD. The Dunhams were Unitarian Communists. Obama was never baptized and is a true believer moslem. That's all anyone needs to know about who and what he is.

It is illegal to stand up to Islam now, so we are doomed to watch the left advance and parry while we feint and cry foul.

11
posted on 04/25/2011 3:30:14 AM PDT
by x_plus_one
(Q:How many middle class debt slaves does it take to pay for Obama care? A: All of them)

“The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that [c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, theres a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled The Law of Nations, and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint...

... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

When it comes to Jr’s murky family history, one of the major stumbling blocks is most are no longer breathing. The press and his supporters takes it upon themselves to spin a yarn worthy a messiah born away in some manger.
With FMD, Jr’s handlers have less control because their meme wavers upon cooperation by the breathing decendants of FMD who have distinct personalities and human flaws of their own which are not easily or willingly subject to teleprompter scripting 24/7/365.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens

Except Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen, not a natural born one.

he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. Wong Kim Ark

Even the Judge issuing the decision made the distinction between native and natural born:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.(p666)

Saying he was 'just as much a citizen' as a natural born one doesn't mean he was saying Wong Kim WAS a natural born citizen.

-----

People commonly try to draw parallels between the Ark case and Obama to try to prove he is natural born, but a simple reading of the actual case can prove otherwise.

Wong Kim's parents petitioned to become citizens before Wong's birth, but the Emperor wouldn't release them from their Chinese citizenship. Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to young to confer citizenship and a father here on a temporary student visa.

Wong Kim never claimed to be anything OTHER than a US citizen at birth.

Obama has not one, but TWO possible citizenships, and both are foreign to the United States.

21
posted on 04/25/2011 5:01:18 AM PDT
by MamaTexan
(I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)

There appear to be Obama supporters who come to Obama’s defense on FR on the ‘natural born’ issue with weak court cases which are not ON POINT on whether Obama will meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen of the US.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Natural Born Citizen = BOTH parents are U. S. Citizens
AND child must be born in the U.S. mainland.

I guess this leaves Obama out, unless he was born before the Adoption of the US Constitution

24
posted on 04/25/2011 5:28:24 AM PDT
by Garvin
(When it comes to my freedom, there will be no debate. There will be a fight)

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States

Is it an either/or situation or an and qualifier or just some legalize phrasing that means both?

The main problem above is that you truncated the quote which would have easily answered your question.

Here's the rest: "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

There are two groups here that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, were eligible for the presidency: 1. natural born Citizens, 2. those who, though not "natural born," were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The second category no longer exists, unless you can find someone that is over 224 years old.

And the sad state is that we have a president whose past is defined by what he wanted to write in two books.

By coincidence because of a discussion on another thread I returned to an old article about Edward Said. (Said is dead now. He was a Columbia Professor and anti-Israel agitator.) This paragraph struck me:

For the past three years I have been looking into the core autobiographical assertions made by Said about his childhood in Palestine--a childhood that he has repeatedly asserted is central to the formation of his political thought and indeed of his emblematic political identity as a Palestinian refugee. My search, a fascinating adventure in itself, took me through sometimes obscure public records and archives in five countries on four continents and involved tracking down and interviewing numerous relatives, neighbors, school classmates, and professional colleagues. Virtually everything I learned, the principal conclusions of which are set out below, contradicts the story of Said's early life as Said has told it.

Said was not yet dead when Obama was at Columbia. Coincidence? Maybe not.

So, by this definition, was George Washington a natural born citizen? Presumably his parents were dead before the constitution came into effect, and they would have been English citizens. If that's really what those words mean, some explanation of its 1st generation complications would be in order. On the other hand, I can't imagine what else it might mean.

whether Obama will meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen of the US.

He doesn't. He's either an Indonesian or Kenyan citizen who overstayed his student visa or a native born US citizen (one who acquires citizenship via jus soli the legal rule that a childs citizenship is determined by place of birth).

-----

The best test of eligibility, IMHO, would be college records.

It is my understanding that children in the US of mixed citizenship must choose ONE when they reach the age of majority.

If that tin-plated turd world wanna-be dictator took one RED CENT of money for foreign student aid, he should be strapped to the outside of the White House gate..... and left there.

31
posted on 04/25/2011 6:23:06 AM PDT
by MamaTexan
(I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)

“No person except a natural born citizen OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION..” can serve as president.

In fact this phrase PROVES they knew what they were talking about and meant it to mean a NBC would BE A DESCENDENT of Citizens of the United States, born on the soil, because they knew it would take a generation to have any NBC’s old enough to be elected.

I believe that’s the way it is. “Bamsters” mom was a US citizen. He was born out of wedlock. The rules at the time of his birth make him a citizen of the US. Just because he’s a citizen does not change the fact that he is a lousy president. On a related point, I think we should clarify the law so that just being born on US soil does NOT make you a citizen (anchor babies).

40
posted on 04/25/2011 7:07:13 AM PDT
by jdsteel
(I like the way the words "Palin for President" make progressives apoplectic.)

I believe that’s the way it is. “Bamsters” mom was a US citizen. He was born out of wedlock. The rules at the time of his birth make him a citizen of the US. Just because he’s a citizen does not change the fact that he is a lousy president. On a related point, I think we should clarify the law so that just being born on US soil does NOT make you a citizen (anchor babies).

41
posted on 04/25/2011 7:07:21 AM PDT
by jdsteel
(I like the way the words "Palin for President" make progressives apoplectic.)

There are numerous long threads on FR that prove without any doubt that in order to be a NBC a child must have both - citizen parents and be born on US soil.

No, I've seen people repeatedly assert that, but unverified assertions are NOT proof.

Please educate yourself on the matter.

Since you consider yourself so knowledgeable, why don't you do more than just talk and SHOW me?

-----

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel / CHAP. XIX. Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

45
posted on 04/25/2011 7:25:50 AM PDT
by MamaTexan
(I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)

I’m not a researcher. Do a search for bushpilot1 and rxsid and read their research. They’ve proven without a doubt the original meaning and intent of NBC. I’ve read up, you can too. Your quote relates to citizenship only, not natural born citizenship.

Just do a search on their names, there are quite a few very long threads filled with references and sources and they prove their case excellently.

48
posted on 04/25/2011 7:47:04 AM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

WKA was about citizenship. The winning side used the NBC clause to show that WKA met the criteria, and thus was a citizen, since a NBC must also be a citizen. That was half the decision.

You can ignore that half if you wish, but no court will.

“Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to young to confer citizenship...”

That is so grossly far from the truth that it is embarrassing. There is no age requirement for mothers giving birth in the USA for citizenship. What we had was an American citizen, giving birth in Hawaii, with a father who was here legally for some years, and who abandoned the mother and baby about the time the baby was born - and you claim the baby received UK citizenship thru the father...not even close.

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established...

...Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects...

...Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth...

...That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution...”

You should also know that native citizen and natural born citizen were often used interchangeably:

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONES COMMENTARIES (1803)

50
posted on 04/25/2011 8:04:20 AM PDT
by Mr Rogers
(Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.